Evidence of meeting #29 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was young.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Csaba Nikolenyi  Professor, Department of Political Science, Concordia University, As an Individual
Jon Breslaw  Professor Emeritus of Economics, Concordia University, As an Individual
Mercédez Roberge  Campaigner, As an Individual
France Robertson  Manager, Centre d'amitié d'autochtone de Lanaudière
Ken Battah  As an Individual
Claude Rainville  As an Individual
Thérèse Chaput  As an Individual
Linda Schwey  As an Individual
Gérard Vincent  As an Individual
Danielle Perreault  General Manager, FADOQ-Région Lanaudière
Fred-William Mireault  President, Regroupement des étudiants et étudiantes du Cégep de Lanaudière
Daniel Green  As an Individual
Yves Perron  As an Individual
Éric Trottier  As an Individual
Thérèse Desrochers  As an Individual
Francis Blais  As an Individual
Sylvain Chartier  As an Individual
Daniel Samson  As an Individual
Hernestro Castro  As an Individual
Jean-François Massicote  As an Individual

2:25 p.m.

Professor, Department of Political Science, Concordia University, As an Individual

Csaba Nikolenyi

Given the Canadian reality, I agree with you, which is why I'm advocating for that here. The disadvantage or otherwise of list PR, like STV, is that it is going to create more parties. It is going to lead to coalition governments. It does create stronger parties. It creates internally more cohesive, more united parties.

If they are not comfortable with that, parties can decide whether they want to internally democratize their candidate selection procedures or not. That will create greater opportunities for access. But that's really a different matter. That's a question of party, not electoral reform.

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

There was one more thing that you mentioned. I just want, in conclusion, to get all the little things that were missing. You mentioned that in New Zealand there have been pitfalls, and that's what coaxed them to have the referendum. What were their pitfalls from MMP? You said that parliament was paralyzed. I think that's the word you used.

2:30 p.m.

Professor, Department of Political Science, Concordia University, As an Individual

Csaba Nikolenyi

There was a sequence. New Zealand adopted in the early mid-1990s the German MMP. That ended overnight, if you will, the conventional very stable, very solid two party system that had been in place, and you had a multi-party parliament in which coalition governments had to be formed. This is where my argument for electoral integrity legislation came in. Floor crossing fundamentally prevented the functioning of the first New Zealand government, precisely because the dynamics of the system and the new parties that were formed and the new parties that entered weren't habituated to the new style of functioning.

The first institutional attempt to regulate the system was through electoral integrity legislation, with a sunset clause: let's see whether this is going to be enough; let's keep it on the books for five years, and if the problem of floor crossing is not going to continue to remain a problem, we'll let it expire. That's exactly what happened.

But it's not clear. Your colleague, Mr. DeCourcey, quoted the numbers very correctly. There was still support for the current system, convincing support—58% is not unreasonable—but there's a reason that electoral reform is being thought of in New Zealand. It's not at all clear that the two party mentality is really a matter of the past. Here it's important to remember what Professor Breslaw mentioned about heritage.

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you very much.

That ends our round of questioning.

We thought we had heard everything, given that this is our 29th meeting, but you have truly surprised us with some new ideas, and that was very stimulating. Thank you for coming here to Joliette to address this committee. I hope you will read our future report with great interest.

Thank you.

We will take a short break for a few minutes to allow the second group of witnesses to set up.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Our two witnesses have arrived.

Hello.

We are commencing the second part of the meeting. We welcome Mercédez Roberge.

I believe you're a former president of the Fédération des femmes du Québec—the Quebec federation of women.

2:40 p.m.

Mercédez Roberge Campaigner, As an Individual

No, I'm a former president of Mouvement démocratie nouvelle. I recently became a member of the board of the Fédération des femmes du Québec.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Pardon me.

2:40 p.m.

Campaigner, As an Individual

Mercédez Roberge

In this context, it's my involvement with Mouvement démocratie nouvelle, as president, from 2003 to 2010, that is more important.

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Understood. Thank you.

We also welcome France Robertson, of the Centre d'amitié autochtone de Lanaudière.

You will each have 10 minutes to present your briefs. This will be followed by questions from the members present.

Without further ado, we give the floor to Ms. Roberge.

2:40 p.m.

Campaigner, As an Individual

Mercédez Roberge

Let me begin by thanking you for your invitation. I should mention that my remarks to you today will be contained in a more formal brief; what you have, for the moment, are merely my speaking notes.

As I mentioned, I have been advocating voting system reform for a long time—at the Quebec level, since 2003—but always with a view to achieving a combination of objectives. The idea is not just to achieve proportionality, but rather, a set of objectives. I have the same democratic aspirations for the Parliament of Canada and the National Assembly of Quebec. In my opinion, for the federal government and parliament, the compensatory mixed proportional model is best adapted to the situation, because it best meets the different objectives you have set as a committee, and best meets the objectives I will present to you.

In my view, all the founding components of a society need to take part in decision-making. That is not the case at this time. We have values of fairness, equality and inclusion, but this is not reflected in Parliament. In order for these values to become a reality, institutional mechanisms—that is, mechanisms that are part of electoral law—will need to be implemented at the same time as the voting system is changed.

Essentially, we are referring to a gender-differentiated analysis, and what might be termed a differentiated inclusion analysis. This implies a multicultural, multiracial vision. In my opinion, this must be included in the analysis of electoral system reform, and in the content of the voting system to be implemented. I will therefore focus on this aspect, which I believe the committee has heard little about so far. I will provide examples of how this is being carried out elsewhere in the world, and of how it could be carried out here.

The proportional family of voting systems offers a better chance of diversifying representation, but in order for the results to be truly consistent, mechanisms that set objectives must be included from the outset. The modalities must be chosen based on their ability to achieve two goals: to respect each vote, and respect each voter. A multitude of countries have implemented proportional systems to achieve diversity. I will present some numbers derived from the analysis of the documentation regarding women. They can simply be transposed for the purpose of applying them to the representation of racialized persons as well, because there is obviously a representation deficit there, too.

My figures are generally for the year 2016, and are for the Commons. We've heard it said, many times, that Canada was in 62nd place for women's representation in national parliaments, but little has been said about what happened in the countries that achieved better rankings. Of the 28 countries in the world that have elected at least 35% women, 25 have proportional systems. This is no accident. Fourteen of those 25 countries have combined the proportional method with other modalities. This includes mixed proportional models. In other words, 14 combine the proportional method with mechanisms aimed at achieving equality. These countries include Rwanda, Bolivia, Senegal, Mexico, Ecuador, Finland, Nicaragua and Spain, to name a few. There are others.

Let's zoom back out to a global view. Eighty-six countries have implemented mechanisms aimed at achieving equality between men and women. That's 44% of the world's nations, or, if you prefer, 37% of OECD countries. So this is not marginal. What characterizes these 86 countries, in comparison with the roughly 100 others that do not have mechanisms favouring equal representation, is that they are much more likely to have proportional voting systems. Fifty-eight of the 86 countries have proportional systems plus those mechanisms. On average, they elected a greater percentage of women than the countries that do not have mechanisms: 24% versus 18%. If one examines the performance of the countries that have adopted proportional systems plus those mechanisms, one finds that they have achieved 27% representation for women.

That's a great deal better than countries with majoritarian systems, where the figure is roughly 17%. The countries that have adopted the combination to which I've referred—that is, proportionality plus a mechanism—have made better progress. From 1999 to 2016, they increased an average of 14 percentage points, compared with 6.7% for countries that did not use such a combination. So this produces much better results than when the mechanisms are combined with a majoritarian voting system, and, needless to say, much better results than when a majoritarian system alone is present—something we would absolutely not propose.

Bear in mind that the global average for women elected is 20.7%. In the countries with a proportional system, one specific combination, namely, gender alternation on lists, achieves 34% female representation, in a context where there are, of course, several types of mechanisms. That's major.

What might that look like here? Broadly speaking, although the systems and mechanisms are varied, there are two major categories of mechanisms: mechanisms that set objectives for the percentage of female or racialized candidates, and are therefore about the efforts made by political parties; and objectives concerning the representation achieved in the election results. After the mechanisms are established, the rules to ensure compliance with those mechanisms must be put in place.

Currently, an elections statute regulates each stage of the electoral process. Everything, including time periods, is addressed. It would make sense to include the rules intended to implement the principles which we, as a society, have deemed important. Given that we allocate public funds to political parties for the good of democracy, it would make sense for us to demand accountability from political parties in terms of the results they attain. It would also make sense for us to demand accountability for their use of the funds. The socio-economic conditions of women and racialized persons are much worse than those of the population as a whole; this must be taken into account when considering the obstacles to running as a candidate.

I will not make some very concrete proposals. We must protect our principles from shifting winds and affirm the principles of equality and inclusion in the important documents; we must include the mechanisms in the elections act. We must act on two fronts, efforts and results, and thus, on both the percentage of candidates and the percentage of persons elected. More specifically, in a compensatory mixed proportional system, women and racialized persons must be encouraged to run for office. In order to do this, we could increase the extent to which their election expenses are reimbursed, and take their socio-economic differences into account. We could encourage political parties to present teams in keeping with the principles we establish. We must ask them to achieve targets and specify rules for that purpose.

In a compensatory mixed model, there are, of course, two components related to seats: the constituency list and the compensatory list. There are mechanisms that are good for both the constituency candidates and the compensatory candidates. If the value of equality is enshrined properly in the statute, we can then include a rule that the parties must present no less than 40% and no more than 60% of candidates of a given gender. This would apply both to the block of constituency seats, and the block of compensatory seats.

A part should also table a fixed percentage of candidates who are racialized persons. This percentage is easy to establish; there are statistics. The statistics vary by region, so the territorial distribution of racialized persons should be taken into account to establish the objectives. This would apply both to the constituencies and the compensations. The target percentage would therefore be based on pertinent data.

There would be specific mechanisms applicable only to the candidates on the compensatory list. I am referring to the alternation between both genders throughout the list. Rules could even be specified. There can be all sorts of variants, each aimed at ensuring that racialized persons are not at the bottom of the list.

In order for public funds to be used to achieve our objectives of equality, inclusion and non-discrimination in a broad sense, the reimbursement of election expenses should be increased based on the performance achieved, the percentage of women elected and the percentage of racialized persons elected.

There would be a way to have mechanisms based on the situation at election time, and a process for increasing the representation of these groups by level, by step.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Roughly 30 seconds.

2:50 p.m.

Campaigner, As an Individual

Mercédez Roberge

Okay.

The traditional modalities of the voting system have to be taken into account as well. We haven't discussed lists sufficiently. The ratio between constituency seats and compensatory seats has an effect on representation. The more the compensatory seats are reduced, the less effective the list-related rules are. This needs to be taken into account. That's a way do to the gender-differentiated analysis of the voting system to be selected.

Voting systems are never neutral, whether politically or in terms of the composition of the governing group. If we want Parliament to be a welcoming place, the electoral system needs to allow for and foster that characteristic via a structural, social and political response.

The parties need to be gathering points for ideas and social projects. They have a role to play and a responsibility to bear. A change to the voting system must improve democracy in a profound way so that each vote and each person counts. I consider it a collective responsibility.

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you, Ms. Roberge.

It's your turn now, Ms. Robertson.

2:50 p.m.

France Robertson Manager, Centre d'amitié d'autochtone de Lanaudière

Hello.

My name is France Robertson. I am an Innu woman from Mashteuiatsh, in the Lac-Saint-Jean area. I have been living in Montréal, an urban environment, for 23 years. I am the director of the Lanaudière Native Friendship Centre and vice-president of the Quebec federation of native friendship centres.

First of all, I'd like to note that we are on Atikamekw territory. I thank the Atikamekws. The Manawan community is right next door. I think it's important to underscore that.

The Native Friendship Centre movement has been active in Canada for more than 60 years. There are 118 such centres in Canada, including six provincial and territorial associations, as well as the National Association of Friendship Centres, or NAFC. In the province of Quebec, the provincial federation is called the Regroupement des centres d'amitié autochtones du Québec.

The Native Friendship Centre movement has been present in Quebec for more than 45 years. The first friendship centre opened in Chibougamau, in 1969. During the 1970s, centres opened in Val-d'Or, La Tuque, Montreal, Senneterre and Quebec City. The Joliette centre is relatively new; it opened in 2001. These cities were already meeting places for indigenous citizens, who converge there to get access to services, and settle there permanently.

More and more indigenous people are leaving First Nations communities, which you call reserves, to settle in urban communities so they can study, work, or have a better life, or for health reasons. In the Joliette area, 60% of the indigenous population are Atikamekw who still speak their language.

We are the largest First Nations services infrastructure in Canadian cities. The Native Friendship Centres have a shared vision, namely, to improve the quality of life of Aboriginal citizens who live in urban areas or are transiting through such areas. They are multi-service centres in urban environments for indigenous clients—that is, First Nations, Métis and Inuit people—but they have an open-door policy without distinction based on status, nation or place of residence.

We are Aboriginal democratic and non-partisan community organizations, and we work in a spirit of complementarity with the partners in our communities. Our movement's strength is based on our democratic structure, which enables all indigenous citizens to express their aspirations and take part in the decision-making process aimed at achieving objectives, by sitting on our boards of directors and attending the annual general meetings, and which takes their experience as consumers of services into account so that the services can be improved and made more responsive to their needs.

Our management and governance structures are oriented toward indigenous citizens. Accordingly, our primary commitment is to indigenous people who live in or are transiting through cities.

The trend of indigenous people moving to the cities continues to grow: 60% of indigenous people live outside reserves. In Quebec, more than half the indigenous population—53.2%—live in a city. The trend is getting more pronounced. There is a lot of talk about Quebec's aging population, but our own population is young: 55% of us are 25 or younger. More and more young people are settling in the cities.

I'm going to digress for a moment. Although it's considered a civic duty, I've only voted twice. When I left my community, I felt there was no point to voting—that it was not about indigenous people. I saw no interest in doing so, and felt it didn't concern me. I questioned what it would change, given that the candidates who get elected are not indigenous people, and that the Indian Act remained in force. That was always my attitude. But one day, an elder told me that if we want to change something, we have to change our attitude, get involved, and go vote so that things will change. I've voted twice, and am proud of it. I also talk to my children about the importance of voting. I would never have thought that I would talk about voting systems one Friday afternoon in Joliette. Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie!

I know that you'll be hearing from very few indigenous people, but in my opinion, it is very important to hear them.

I heard Mercédez discuss the voting system in considerable detail earlier. For our part, we are making great efforts to raise our sisters' and brothers' awareness of the importance of voting. But we need the voting system to adapt to our approach—to our way of doing things.

In the most recent election campaign, the 2015 campaign, the Friendship Centre movement put a lot of effort into raising indigenous people's awareness of the importance of exercising their voting rights. We created an elections program to help indigenous people understand that they needed to vote—that it's a civic duty. We really mobilized. At the Joliette centre, we met with the candidates from each party, to ask them questions. We asked them which elements of their election platform affected indigenous people. They shared with us the issues that were part of their party's platform, but they also shared their personal preoccupations about Atikamekws and their families living in Joliette.

Later, we organized a workshop. We invited our members—our families—to come hear the presentations of the various candidates. We analyzed each party's platform. Our purpose was not to tell people to vote for a given person or platform. Rather, it was to present our issues, and to see what importance each party and each candidate was according to those issues. We also wanted to explain to participants how to get on the voter list, and to share with them the reasons it's important to vote and to determine which party is closest to our Aboriginal values. That's the kind of reflection we had with the families.

It's not enough to tell families that it's important to vote, and that it's a citizen's duty and right. That's not how I was made a voter. I was made a voter when I was told that a certain party thinks Aboriginal people are important, that it listens to them, and that, for these reasons, it's important to go out and vote—to cast a vote for a certain party, or a certain candidate. Those are the points we raised, and our people went out and voted.

We knew that Aboriginal voters had to surmount a variety of obstacles in order to exercise their voting rights. We knew they were unfamiliar with the electoral process, and had trouble finding information about parties and candidates. We knew that the cards we could submit as proof of identity do not make reference to a place of residence, and that our nations are still largely nomadic today. Even though we have reserves, many families remain nomadic. So, at the polling station, presenting the elector's card with a residence address is a challenge. Some people lose it, while others don't go and get it, or don't feel like it. Aboriginal people often tend not to vote when an obstacle arises. For all these reasons, we looked for a way to facilitate the process, in order to encourage indigenous voters to exercise their civic duty.

In order to counter the lack of motivation and interest among indigenous people, we invested a lot of effort in motivating them to exercise their right to vote. We shared easy-to-understand information about the way the electoral system and the voting process work. We also used social networks to mobilize our members. This included Facebook, a powerful communication tool. We facilitated sharing of information about political parties and local candidates. I thought that was very important, and I thank the parties and candidates, who were very cooperative. Aboriginal people accord considerable importance to the interest shown in them, and can anticipate the impact their votes will have.

In addition, we offered transportation to the polling station on voting day. It's banal, but important. We generally offer transportation to our activities, and we decided to do that on election day as well, to encourage our members to get out and vote.

You now know how much importance we ascribe to raising indigenous voters' awareness about voting. Friendship centres are non-partisan organizations, and it's important to respect that fact.

The most important thing for us is that people be able to vote.

Few indigenous people vote in federal or provincial elections. According to Elections Canada, 30% of First Nations living in Quebec communities were able to vote in the 2011 federal election, compared to 63% in the rest of Canada. We know that in the last election, there were Aboriginal candidates—there was talk of this—and we were very proud of them.

The important thing to us, truly, was that people be able to vote, and not just for a party running Aboriginal candidates. We certainly hoped Aboriginal candidates would be elected, but it was more important to us that changes be made to programs. For example, right now, urban populations are a growing challenge. This was important to us.

I hope that, one day, by exercising my right to vote, we will achieve nation-to-nation dialogue. This won't happen tomorrow, but I hope that, one day, each First Nation will be told that it can vote and that everything is possible. I know that the Indian Act won't be abolished tomorrow, but if Aboriginal people are called upon to vote, it could happen one day.

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I suspect we will have many questions for you, Ms. Robertson.

3:05 p.m.

Manager, Centre d'amitié d'autochtone de Lanaudière

France Robertson

I thought you were going to ask all your questions to Ms. Roberge.

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Our questions will be addressed to you both.

3:05 p.m.

Manager, Centre d'amitié d'autochtone de Lanaudière

France Robertson

Is my time up?

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Actually, we would like to move on to the questions.

We will give the floor to Mr. Aldag, who has five minutes.

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

I'd like to welcome you to our committee, and thank both of you for coming and presenting. Both of you have presented perspectives that are very important for us to hear, the issues of underparticipation, under-representation of women, visible minorities, aboriginal and indigenous groups.

I wanted to say, Ms. Robertson, I'm really pleased that you took the advice of your elder and have become involved in the process. It's really encouraging to listen to the work that you and your organization have done in vocalizing and informing your community to get involved in the process. That's a very positive thing. With that as kind of the context for what I'm going to say, you both have touched a bit on how important it is to the communities you are working with to change the process to deal with some of these issues versus some of the other things.

Madam Roberge, you spoke about some of the things that could be done outside of going to a PR system. If you would be able to give us some comments on.... If we don't end up with a full-on PR system, it may not fix all the things, so what are the other elements we should be looking at and considering at the same time to continue dealing with the issues that you've raised? You gave us a couple. Are there any other things you'd like to see?

Ms. Robertson, are there specific actions that you feel we need to take to ensure that your community, the indigenous community, is involved in this process?

3:05 p.m.

Campaigner, As an Individual

Mercédez Roberge

The mechanisms I mentioned should not be established outside the proportional voting system; they should be set up within it. It is all the more important that the Committee's findings include thoughts to the effect that, when changing the voting system, the mechanisms that will make it possible to achieve society's principles of equality and inclusion should immediately be made part of the system.

Majoritarian voting systems can, of course, include mechanisms, but they are not as well-equipped as the proportional system to implement them, because majoritarian systems work one riding at a time, each riding being a silo. It's very difficult to intervene comprehensively and have an overall vision. When people vote, they don't have an idea of the party's complete team, or of the proportion of women and racialized persons. It's something you don't see. But in a proportional system, or a mixed compensatory proportional system, it's something you can see. Even the parties will benefit from showing it to us more. That should be taken into account.

However, I'd like to draw your attention to the difference between majoritarian systems and proportional systems. Even if a country that uses a majoritarian system includes institutional measures, it only achieves an average of 17% representation for women, compared to 14% if it does not include a measure. That is certainly not a target. Add 10% to each of those numbers, and you get the effect that they have on proportional systems. It's the combination. So you have to act within the voting system, not outside it.

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

I want to give Ms. Robertson a chance to comment as well, because five minutes do go very quickly.

Do you have any comments about what things we can continue to do to support you, along with changing the system?

3:10 p.m.

Manager, Centre d'amitié d'autochtone de Lanaudière

France Robertson

First of all, the elector's card is a challenge in itself for us.

Why can't people simply show up with a piece of ID?

For Aboriginal families, it would be a lot easier. And as I mentioned earlier, friendship centres are non-partisan organizations. Since it's important to attract indigenous families, why not create polling stations in friendship centres?

Since they are non-partisan organizations, they are neutral places. I think it's an interesting idea. It would make it possible to bring out more indigenous persons, and they could exercise their right to vote.

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Thank you.

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Mr. Rayes, the floor is yours.